Open Access

Review of ‘Clean Hands Save Lives’, written by Thierry Crouzet

Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control20143:13

DOI: 10.1186/2047-2994-3-13

Received: 16 April 2014

Accepted: 17 April 2014

Published: 5 May 2014

Book details

L’Âge d’Homme, Tom Clegg & Thierry Crouzet L’Âge d’Homme, CP 5076, 1002 Lausanne (Suisse) 5, rue Férou, 75006 Paris (France).

Keywords

Hand hygiene Semmelweis

The concept that a ‘tipping point’ occurs when a behaviour or cultural norm reaches a threshold when sufficient knowledge, information, expectation and/or peer pressure is amassed is beautifully illustrated in this book, which tells the story of Dr. Pittet’s hand hygiene journey. Malcolm Gladwell popularized this idea in his 2000 best seller, “The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make A Big Difference” [1]. In his book, Mr. Gladwell uses the example of an epidemic such as measles which starts with a very few cases, but reaches a point at which the spread is rapid and daunting in its scope. Crouzet’s book has produced an easy-to-read narrative of Dr. Pittet’s tipping point contributions to global health through his work on hand hygiene.

Research demonstrating the efficacy of alcohol hand hygiene has been published around the world, starting in the 1970s and continuing through today—examples are from the UK [26], Croatia [7], Finland [8], The Netherlands [9], Germany [10], Austria [1113], South Africa [14], Japan [15], and the United States [1621]. Additionally, a hand hygiene guideline recommending alcohol-based products was first published in 1988 [22] and then again in 1995 [23], well before the CDC and WHO guidelines recommended alcoholic solutions. Hence, Dr. Pittet sits on the shoulders of others who came before him to establish a body of evidence of the efficacy of alcohol-based hand hygiene products.

But an important lesson for the scientific community is that conducting and publishing rigorous research is not sufficient for reaching that tipping point which results in changed behaviour and culture. The publication in 2002 of CDC’s hand hygiene guideline [24], for example, had only minimal impact on healthcare personnel hand hygiene behavior [25, 26]. Didier took up the ‘cause’ of hand hygiene in the early 1990s and soon recognized that changing habits so engrained as hand hygiene required not only evidence of effectiveness but the application of multiple behavioural and systems-level strategies.

This book describes in colourful and rather dramatic (even evangelistic) terms the unfolding and evolution of Dr. Pittet’s work and contributions. It is not, however, a book for scientists seeking factual data. Rather it is a saga of a charismatic and committed individual who was in the right place at a tipping point and had a prepared mind and the passion to help make hand hygiene globally accessible and demonstrate its impact.

There are problems with the book. First, it contains a number of factual inaccuracies and slight misinterpretations, and, with the exception of the usual nod to Semmelweis, provides little historical perspective or knowledge of the field. Examples of some of the more egregious inaccuracies are below:

– Stating that “No one had thought of distributing it (alcohol) widely in hospitals” (p. 65) when alcohol-based products were used in a number of countries, and implying that HUG was the first place to make an inexpensive alcohol-based sanitizer in-house. In fact, a number of individuals and groups of care providers were teaching health care providers in lesser developed countries how to prepare alcohol hand hygiene preparations in their own settings. For example, in 1992 Jhpeigo, a global non-profit organization established in 1974 (http://www.jhpiego.org/content/jhpiego-history), published a manual which was widely circulated throughout many countries of the world, particularly in lesser developed regions, which not only recommended alcohol-based products for hand hygiene but also provided a ‘recipe’ for inexpensive local production [27]. The manual was again updated in 2003 [28] and has since undergone five reprintings, a testament to its widespread distribution. It offers guidance for hospitals and other facilities regarding how to institutionalize infection prevention processes such as hand hygiene. Healthcare institutions around the world were producing their own alcohol formulations for years before Dr. Pittet’s first visit to Africa.

– Attributing the ‘editorial struggle’ of the publication of one of Dr. Pittet’s early papers discussed in Chapter II to the journal’s resistance to change when, in fact, it is typical for authors to receive multiple requests for editing and revision.

– Stating that the US was purposefully failing to monitor and/or report infection rates. The author says:

“If countries such as France are exemplary in their efforts, making the use of alcohol a criterion of health care quality, others are more lax, starting with the United States. Having taken the lead in the 1970s and 1980s due to the zeal of lawyers, they then lagged behind in response to that same zeal. The best way to avoid lawsuits was to neglect measuring infection rates. Out of sight, out of mind. That meant one of the five elements of the multimodal strategy was missing: the reporting of results. All too often, U.S. health care workers do not know the real rates of infection in their service and have no means of knowing whether their performance is improving or not. In these conditions it’s difficult to correct or improve behavior” (p. 135).

Contrary to this statement, the US was one of the first countries to initiate and continue a national infection surveillance system, originally called the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance system and continuing to current times as the National Healthcare Safety Network (http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/). Reporting of infection rates is now mandatory in many states, albeit specific requirements differ by state, and The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services no longer reimburse hospitals for several potentially preventable healthcare-associated infections. Surveillance has been the cornerstone of much of CDC’s infection prevention and control efforts since the 1970s and has been continuous since then.

The author was certainly right about the fact that most US health care workers do not know the rates of infection where they work. One wonders, however, if most health care workers in France, or any other country for that matter, are privy to those rates.

The second problem with the book, from the perspective of a researcher schooled in the publishing style of peer-reviewed scientific papers, is the flowery embellishments and writing style. For example, Chapter II, “Spiritual heir to Ignaz Semmelweis” (a rather dramatic title) provides emotion-packed anecdotes about puerperal sepsis and Semmelweis’ struggles (which, in all fairness, are common in most literature regarding this important historical figure and likely to be accurate). And the dramatic description of a nurse in 1997 (!!) being booed and ridiculed by attendees at the French Society for Hospital Hygiene when she discussed using alcohol for hand hygiene is beyond belief to this US nurse researcher. The ‘Geneva model of hand hygiene’ was labeled ‘a consecration’, and Pittet’s work was likened to religious fervor and faith.

The writing style is just a personal preference, however, because the book does a great job of telling a meaningful, important, and moving story. Clearly the primary audience of this book is the lay public and the story telling style was entertaining and colourful. Just don’t use it for fact-finding! There was indeed a body of work on alcohol-based hand hygiene before Dr. Pittet began his journey, but his amazing and distinctive accomplishment has been to serve as the tipping point to globalize the importance of hand hygiene, conceptualize the practice in ways that are universally meaningful and accessible, and demonstrate its value. As Crouzet states:

“Making a gesture as simple as cleansing one’s hands into an historic innovation certainly requires a special kind of personality, a connection to people and to the most ordinary ideas, an open mind combined with an innate goodness” (p. 100).

All in all, this book accomplishes the monumental and worthy task of telling the story of hand hygiene and its role in reducing morbidity and mortality through the tipping point work of a Dr. Pittet, a visionary scientist and tireless humanitarian.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

None.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Nursing, Columbia University
(2)
Epidemiology Department, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University

References

  1. Gladwell M: The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. 2000, New York, NY: Little, Brown and CompanyGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayliffe GA, Bridges K, Lilly HA, Lowbury EJ, Varney J, Wilkins MD: Comparison of two methods for assessing the removal of total organisms and pathogens from the skin. J Hyg (Lond). 1975, 75 (2): 259-274. 10.1017/S002217240004729X.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Lowbury EJ, Ayliffe GA: Proceedings: alcoholic solutions and other agents for disinfection of the surgeon’s hands. J Clin Pathol. 1975, 28 (9): 753-754.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Lowbury EJ, Lilly HA, Ayliffe GA: Preoperative disinfection of surgeons’ hands: use of alcoholic solutions and effects of gloves on skin flora. Br Med J. 1974, 4 (5941): 369-372. 10.1136/bmj.4.5941.369.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Mackintosh CA, Hoffman PN: An extended model for transfer of micro-organisms via the hands: differences between organisms and the effect of alcohol disinfection. J Hyg (Lond). 1984, 92 (3): 345-355. 10.1017/S0022172400064561.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Ayliffe GA, Babb JR, Davies JG, Lilly HA: Hand disinfection: a comparison of various agents in laboratory and ward studies. J Hosp Infect. 1988, 11 (3): 226-243. 10.1016/0195-6701(88)90101-6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Rode M, Filipic B, Herman O: Disinfection of dentists’ hands with ten percent propolis alcohol solution. Zobozdrav Vestn. 1977, 32 (5–6): 137-142. SummerPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Mouton RP, Mouton RP, Ojajarvi J: Handwashing in Finland. J Hosp Infect. 1991, 18 (B): 35-40.Google Scholar
  9. Mouton RP: Consensus prevention of hospital infections. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1990, 134 (5): 231-235.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kalmar P, Steinhagen RH: Surgical hand disinfection using alcoholic rubbing disinfectants. Chirurg. 1984, 55 (4): 280-287.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Rotter ML, Koller W: Surgical hand disinfection: effect of sequential use of two chlorhexidine preparations. J Hosp Infect. 1990, 16 (2): 161-166. 10.1016/0195-6701(90)90060-2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Wewalka G, Rotter M, Koller W, Stanek G: Comparison of efficacy of 14 procedures for the hygienic disinfection of hands (author’s transl). Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig B. 1977, 165 (2): 242-249.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Rotter M, Koller W, Kundi M: Usability of three alcohols for a standard disinfection method to be employed for the evaluation of procedures for the hygienic disinfection of hands (author’s transl). Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig B. 1977, 164 (5–6): 428-438.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Maarschalk T: The use of a chlorhexidine-alcohol mixture as a hand rinse in a neonatal department. S Afr Med J. 1983, 64 (22): 865-867.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Namura S, Nishijima S, Mitsuya K, Asada Y: Study of the efficacy of antiseptic handrub lotions with hand washing machines. J Dermatol. 1994, 21 (6): 405-410.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Aly R, Maibach HI: A comparison of the antimicrobial effect of 0.5% chlorhexidine (Hibistat) and 70% isopropyl alcohol on hands contaminated with Serratia marcescens. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1980, 5 (2): 197-201. 10.1111/j.1365-2230.1980.tb01688.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Larson EL, Eke PI, Laughon BE: Efficacy of alcohol-based hand rinses under frequent-use conditions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986, 30 (4): 542-544. 10.1128/AAC.30.4.542.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Butz AM, Laughon BE, Gullette DL, Larson EL: Alcohol-impregnated wipes as an alternative in hand hygiene. Am J Infect Control. 1990, 18 (2): 70-76. 10.1016/0196-6553(90)90084-6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Larson EL, Butz AM, Gullette DL, Laughon BA: Alcohol for surgical scrubbing?. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990, 11 (3): 139-143. 10.2307/30145476.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Boyce JM, Larson EL, Weinstein RA: Alcohol-based hand gels and hand hygiene in hospitals. Lancet. 2002, 360 (9344): 1509-1510. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11443-7. author reply 1511PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Boyce JM: Using alcohol for hand antisepsis: dispelling old myths. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000, 21 (7): 438-441. 10.1086/501784.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Larson E: Guideline for use of topical antimicrobial agents. Am J Infect Control. 1988, 16 (6): 253-266. 10.1016/S0196-6553(88)80005-1.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Larson EL: APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control. 1995, 23 (4): 251-269. 10.1016/0196-6553(95)90070-5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Boyce JM, Pittet D, Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory C, Force HSAIHHT: Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HIPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Am J Infect Control. 2002, 30 (8): S1-S46. 10.1067/mic.2002.130391.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Larson EL, Quiros D, Lin SX: Dissemination of the CDC’s Hand Hygiene Guideline and impact on infection rates. Am J Infect Control. 2007, 35 (10): 666-675. 10.1016/j.ajic.2006.10.006.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Quiros D, Lin S, Larson EL: Attitudes toward practice guidelines among intensive care unit personnel: a cross-sectional anonymous survey. Heart Lung. 2007, 36 (4): 287-297. 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2006.08.005.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Tietjen L, Cronin W, McIntosh N: Infection Prevention for Family Planning Service Programs: A Problem Solving Reference Manual. 1992, Durant, OK: Essential Medical Information Systems, IncGoogle Scholar
  28. Tietjen L, Bossemeyer D, McIntosh N: Infection Prevention Guidelines for Healthcare Facilities With Limited Resources. 2003, Baltimore, MD: Jhpiego CorporationGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Larson; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement